Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 5 December 2019,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thom ps on (England), Chairman
Alex andra Góm ez Bruinew oud (Uruguay & Netherlands ), member
S tijn Boey kens (Belgium ), member
S tefano La Porta (Italy ), member
Abu Nay eem S hohag (Banglades h), member
on the claim presented by the player,
S aïd Id Azza , France
represented by Mr. Selçuk Demir
as Claimant / Counter-Respondent
against the club,
Gires uns por , Turkey
Represented by Mr Ercan Sevdimbas
as Respondent / Counter-Claimant
regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties
I.
Facts of the cas e
1.
On 28 June 2018, the French player, Saïd Id Azza, (hereinafter: the player or the
Claimant /Counter-Respondent) and the Turkish club, Giresunspor (hereinafter: the
club or the Respondent/Counter-Claimant) signed an employment contract
(hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 28 June 2018 until 31 May 2020
2.
According to art 6.1 of the contract, the salary of the player for the 2018/2019 season
is EUR 150,000, paid as follows:
EUR 30,000 on 26 June 2018;
EUR 10,000 on 30 July 2018;
EUR 20,000 on 30 September 2018;
EUR 20,000 on 31 October 2018;
EUR 20,000 on 31 January 2019;
EUR 25,000 on 28 February 2019;
EUR 25,000 on 30 April 2019.
3.
According to art 6.1 of the contract, the salary of the player for the 2019/2020 season
is EUR 175,000.
4.
Art. 6.2 provided for a compensation clause in case of termination with just cause of
the player providing that “in case the Club falls into a default for any payment for
more than 60 (sixty) days then the Player shall have the Option to terminate the
contract. ln Order to exercise this Option, the Player shall first send a written
notification via a notary public to the Club and if the Club fails to pay the amount due
to the Player within 30 (Thirty) days after the receipt by the Club of the respective
notification, the Player shall be free to terminate the Contract. ln this case, the Player
shall be entitled to take action before FIFA bodies to settle the dispute. The gaining of
the player Player arising from the new club(s) between the termination date and
expiration date shall be deducted from the indemnification to be decided by the
judicial committees.
5.
On 25 December 2018, the player put the club in default for the payment of
outstanding salaries in the amount of EUR 45,000. The default letter sent by the player
gave the club a deadline of 7 days to pays the EUR 45,000, failure to do so and the
player would be “compelled” to terminate the contract.
Player Saïd Id Azza, France / Club Giresunspor, Turkey
2/12
6.
On 28 January 2019 the Turkish Football Federation (hereinafter: the TFF) confirmed
the termination of the contract by the player.
7.
On 6 March 2019, the Player lodged a claim before FIFA against the Club for breach of
contract in the total amount of EUR 590,000, he provided the following breakdown:
EUR 115,000 for the 2018-2019 season plus 5% interest;
EUR 175,000 plus 5% interest for the 2019-2020 season;
EUR 300,000 plus 5% interest as an indemnity for moral damages “owing to the
Club’s behavior of not paying salaries”.
8.
In his claim, the player argued that the club paid him EUR 30,000 in July 2018 and then
“a few weeks later” EUR 5,000. The player claims that he was not paid his salary for
the months of September, October, November and December 2018.
9.
The player held that because the club was more than 60 days late in payment of salary,
on the 25 December 2018 he put the club in default for the salaries of August to
December 2018.
10.
Finally, the player stated that he is currently employed by with Club Boulogne, a team
in the third division of the French league. According to the player, the violation of the
contract by the club “forced” him to leave the club near the end of the transfer
window and for a club of inferior status. The player claimed that when signing for
Giresunspor, he turned down propositions from different clubs from the second French
division and Moroccan first division. He argues that the situation with the Club has
caused his value to fall.
11.
In reply to the claim of the player, the club lodged a counterclaim against the player,
requesting the total amount of EUR 94,362.01 plus 5% of interest as from the date of
termination until the date of effective payment corresponding to:
12.
EUR 94,362.01 by “considering the cost of the Player determined by the contract
during the period between the signing date of the Contract (28.06.2018) and the
date of termination without just cause (26.01.2019)”
the cost of the player between 28 June 2018 and 26 January 2019 “equals to EUR
94,632.01 (212/337 x EUR 150,000)”
sporting sanctions to be imposed on the player.
The club claimed that the player failed to take Art 14bis RSTP into consideration,
according to the club the player committed a violation of procedure and the
termination is “unjust according to the Regulations of FIFA”, consequently the Club
deems that the player cannot ask “any termination compensation because of unjust
Player Saïd Id Azza, France / Club Giresunspor, Turkey
3/12
termination”. According to the club, it is “clear” that the player terminated the
contract without just cause as he “failed to follow the procedure regulated by FIFA”.
13.
The club deemed that it had to “suffer economic difficulties while pushing really hard
to eliminate relegation to the subdivision”. Consequently the club requests the
imposition of “6 months sporting sanctions on the Player”.
14.
The club further specified that, in the eventuality that FIFA deem the termination by
the player to be with just cause, the amount requested by the player is “more than it
should be”. According to the club, the amount owed to the player is not EUR 115,000
but EUR 112,315, the club deems that the player “failed” to consider all the payments
made by the club. The club states that the records show that it paid EUR 37,685 rather
than EUR 35,000.
15.
Despite being requested by the FIFA’s administration, the player failed to provide any
comments with regards to the reply and counterclaim of the club.
16.
In reply to FIFA’s request, the player informed FIFA that on 29 January 2019, he and
the French club U.S. Boulogne Cote d’Opale signed an employment contract valid as
from 29 January 2019 until 30 June 2021. The contract provides a monthly salary of
EUR 5,606.
II.
Cons iderations of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1.
First of all, the DRC analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand.
In this respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was first submitted to
FIFA on 6 March 2019. Consequently, the 2018 edition of the Rules Governing the
Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber
(hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of
the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the DRC referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed
that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the
Regulations (edition October 2019), it is competent to decide on the present litigation,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension
between a French player and a Turkish club.
Player Saïd Id Azza, France / Club Giresunspor, Turkey
4/12
3.
Furthermore, the DRC analysed which edition of the Regulations should be applicable
as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber confirmed that, in
accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations (editions 2018 & 2019) and
considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 6 March 2019, the 2018
edition of said Regulations is applicable to the present matter as to the substance.
4.
The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established,
the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, it started to
acknowledge the facts of the case as well as the documents contained in the file.
However, the Chamber emphasized that in the following considerations it will refer
only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent
for the assessment of the matter at hand.
5.
In this respect, the DRC acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that the
Claimant and the Respondent had signed an employment contract on 28 June 2018,
valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2020.
6.
The DRC recalled that in accordance with the contract, the player was entitled inter
alia to the total remuneration of EUR 150,000 for the season 2018/2019 composed of
payable as follows: EUR 30,000 on 26 June 2018, EUR 10,000 on 30 July 2018, EUR
20,000 on 30 September 2018, EUR 20,000 on 31 October 2018, EUR 20,000 on 31
January 2019, EUR 25,000 on 28 February 2019 and EUR 25,000 on 30 April 2019. The
contract further entitled the player EUR 175,000 for the season 2019/2020.
7.
In continuation, the Chamber took note that it is undisputed by the parties involved
that the employment relationship had been terminated by the player. In this regard,
the DRC took note of the absence of a formal termination letter on file, but took note
of the existence of a confirmation of the termination by the player from the TFF dated
28 January 2019. However, the DRC, in the absence of a concrete and certain date of
termination decided that it would take the date of the letter of acknowledgement of
the TFF as date of termination, i.e. 28 January 2019.
8.
The Chamber then reviewed the claim of the player, who requested the total amount
of EUR 590,000, EUR 290,000 for the seasons 2018/2019 and 2019/2020 without
attaching any concept to his request as well as EUR 300,000 as moral damages.
9.
The Chamber took note of the argumentation of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
who held that was only paid EUR 35,000 before he terminated the contract unilaterally
and despite a default notice of 25 December 2019 requesting the payment of EUR
45,000 to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant.
10.
Moreover, the DRC took note that the club lodged a counterclaim against the player,
requesting the total amount of EUR 94,362.01 as compensation for breach of contract
by the player.
Player Saïd Id Azza, France / Club Giresunspor, Turkey
5/12
11.
In its counterclaim, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant argued that the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent had not followed the FIFA Regulations to unilaterally
terminate the contract, in particular, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant considered
that the default notice of the player which granted it 7 days to remedy its default
should have been of a minimum of 15 days.
12.
The Chamber took note of the argumentation of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant
according to which he provided proof of payments and that contrary to the allegations
of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the club had paid EUR 37,685 to the player and
not just EUR 35,000.
13.
The DRC took note despite a request of the FIFA’s administration, the player did not
reply to the counterclaim of the club.
14.
In view of the foregoing and of the diverging opinions of the parties, the Dispute
Resolution Chamber was of the opinion that the issue at stake, considering the claim
and counterclaim lodged respectively by the parties against each other, was to
determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with
or without just cause by the player on 28 January 2019, and which party was
responsible for the early termination of the contractual relationship in question. The
DRC also underlined that, subsequently, if it were found that the employment contract
was breached by one of the parties without just cause, it would be necessary to
determine the consequences for the party that caused the unjust breach of the
relevant employment contract.
15.
Reviewing the argumentations of both parties, the DRC took note that the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent considered that he had just cause to terminate the
contract as the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to pay him EUR 45,000 despite a
default notices which remained unanswered.
16.
On the other hand, the DRC took note that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant deemed
that the termination was not valid as the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did not give
15 days deadline for the club to remedy its default but gave 7 days.
17.
With regard to the claim of the player regarding EUR 45,000 as outstanding
remuneration, the DRC took note that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant contest the
amount of outstanding as it considered that prior to the termination of the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent, it had paid EUR 37,685 and provided proof of
payments in that regard.
18.
Following this, the DRC recalled the content of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural
Rules, according to which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact
shall carry the respective burden of proof, in that sense, the DRC considered the
proof of payments provided by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant were sufficient
enough to attest of payments made to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in the
Player Saïd Id Azza, France / Club Giresunspor, Turkey
6/12
total amount of EUR 37,685. The DRC wanted to underline that in any case, those
proof of payment were uncontested by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent who
failed to provide its comments on the counterclaim of the club.
19.
In continuation, the members of the DRC took into account the argumentation of the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant according to which the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
had terminated the contract without just cause since it only gave 7 days to the club to
remedy its default.
20.
In this respect, the DRC took note that on 25 December 2018, the Claimant/CounterRespondent had put the club in default for the payment of outstanding amounts,
granting 7 days to the club. The DRC also recalled that on 28 January 2019, the Turkish
Football Federation had acknowledged the termination of the contract by the player
and that in the absence of a formal termination letter on file, and since the
termination of the contract had not been disputed by the club, the DRC decided to
take that date as date of termination.
21.
With all of the above in mind, the Chamber was of the firm opinion that despite the
deadline granted in the default notice of 25 December 2018, de facto the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent gave more than 15 days for the Respondent/CounterClaimant to remedy its default since more than 15 days separated the default notice
from the termination of the contract by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent.
22.
The DRC recalled that EUR 37,685 had been paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant,
and that between the start of the contract, 28 June 2018 and the date of termination,
28 January 2019, EUR 80,000 should have been paid to the Claimant/CounterRespondent. Taking this into account, the Chamber was of the opinion that EUR 42,315
were still outstanding. The Chamber was eager to highlight that that amount is
superior to 2 monthly salaries.
23.
Therefore, the members of the DRC highlighted that, at the moment the player
terminated the contract, more than 2 monthly salaries were outstanding and to be
more accurate, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant owed the Claimant/CounterRespondent EUR 42,315.
24.
Consequently, and considering the situation of the player at the time of termination,
the Chamber was of the opinion that the objective circumstances at the time did
provide the player with just cause to terminate the employment contract.
25.
In light of all of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC came to the conclusion
that the player had terminated the contract on 28 January 2019, with just cause.
26.
Having established that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the
early termination of the employment contract, the Chamber focused its attention on
the consequence of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the
Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is entitled
Player Saïd Id Azza, France / Club Giresunspor, Turkey
7/12
to receive from the Respondent/Counter-Respondent an amount of money as
compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding payments on the
basis of the relevant employment contract.
27.
First of all, the Chamber reverted to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim, which
included the outstanding amount of EUR 45,000 relating to salaries due before the
date of termination.
28.
At this stage, the Chamber considered relevant to recall that the club provided
conclusive proof of payments for an amount of EUR 37,685 for the same relevant
period of time, leaving EUR 42,315 as outstanding.
29.
Consequently, taking into account that the contract was terminated on 28 Janaury
2019, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Chamber decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is liable to pay the
Claimant/Counter-Respodent the amount of EUR 42,315, corresponding salaries due
before the date of termination, plus 5% interest as of 6 March 2019, as the breakdown
of the amount claimed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was not specific enough.
30.
In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount
of compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members
of the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the
Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless
otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due
consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further
objective criteria, including, in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to
the player under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on
the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the
contractual breach falls within the protected period.
31.
In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to
clarify as to whether the pertinent contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that the contract contained a provision in that sense, art. 6.2 which
determined the calculation of the compensation in case of termination with just cause
by the player. In this regard, the DRC took note that that article followed the usual
practice of the Chamber.
32.
As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by Respondent/Counter-Claimant to the Claimant/CounterRespondent had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art.
17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a
non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when
calculating the amount of compensation payable.
Player Saïd Id Azza, France / Club Giresunspor, Turkey
8/12
33.
Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber
proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms
of the contract until 31 May 2020, taking into account that the player’s remuneration
up to 28 January 2019 is included in the calculation of the outstanding remuneration
(cf. point II. 29 above). Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR
245,000 (i.e. salaries as from 28 January 2019 until 31 May 2020) serve as basis for the
determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
34.
In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means
of which he would have been able to reduce his loss of income. According to the
constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a new employment contract
shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for
breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his
damages.
35.
In this context, the Chamber noted that the player had signed on 29 January 2019 an
employment contract with US Boulogne Côte d’Opale, valid as from the date of
signature until 30 June 2021, by means of which he was entitled to receive a monthly
remuneration of EUR 5,606.
36.
Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the
amount of EUR 155,304 as mitigated compensation to the player.
37.
Moreover, taking into account art. 17 par.1 (ii), the DRC recalled that it had found the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent had unilaterally terminated the contract due to
overdue payables and took note that the player had been able to mitigate his
damages. Consequently, the Chamber decided that on top of the mitigated
compensation, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had to pay to the Claimant/CounterRespondent an additional compensation in the amount of EUR 42,749 corresponding
to the equivalent of 3 monthly salaries of the player for the season 2019/2020.
38.
Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent/CounterClaimant must pay the amount of EUR 199,053 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
which was considered reasonable and proportionate as compensation for breach of
contract in the case at hand.
39.
In addition, taking into account the player’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Chamber decided that the club
must pay to the player interest of 5% p.a. on the total amount of compensation, i.e.
EUR 199,053 as of 6 March 2019 until the date of effective payment.
40.
Subsequently, the DRC analyzed the request of the player for the amount EUR 300,000
as compensation for moral damages. In this regard, the Chamber deemed it
Player Saïd Id Azza, France / Club Giresunspor, Turkey
9/12
appropriate to point out that the request for said compensation presented by the
Claimant had no contractual basis and was not substantiated. Consequently the DRC
deemed that such request could not be awarded.
41.
Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./3. above, the DRC
judge referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis of the Regulations, which stipulate that,
with its decision, the pertinent FIFA deciding body shall also rule on the consequences
deriving from the failure of the concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of
outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in due time.
42.
In this regard, the DRC pointed out that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure
to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any
new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid
and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.
43.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the
Respondent does not pay the amounts due to the Claimant within 45 days as from the
moment in which the Claimant, following the notification of the present decision,
communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent, a ban from registering any
new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three
entire and consecutive registration periods shall become effective on the Respondent
in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
44.
Finally, the DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and
prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with
art. 24bis par. 3 of the Regulations.
45. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by
establishing that any further request filed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is
rejected. Equally and considering that the club was, overall, found to be in breach of
contract, the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is rejected.
III.
Decision of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Saïd Id Azza, is partially accepted.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club Giresunspor is
rejected.
Player Saïd Id Azza, France / Club Giresunspor, Turkey
10/12
3.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 42,315 plus 5%
interest p.a. as of 6 March 2019 until the date of effective payment.
4.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 199,053
plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 March 2019 until the date of effective payment.
5.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected.
6.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant, immediately and directly, preferably to the e-mail address as
indicated on the cover letter of the present decision, of the relevant bank account
to which the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay the amounts mentioned
under points 3. and 4. above.
7.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall provide evidence of payment of the due
amount plus interest in accordance with points 3. and 4. above to FIFA to the email address [email protected], duly translated, if need be, into one of the official
FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).
8.
In the event that the amount plus interest due in accordance with points 3. and 4.
above are not paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant w ithin 45 day s as from
the notification by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent of the relevant bank details
to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall be
banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up
until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and
consecutive registration periods (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players).
9.
The ban mentioned in point 8 above will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving, once the due amount is paid.
Player Saïd Id Azza, France / Club Giresunspor, Turkey
11/12
10.
In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is still not paid by the end
of the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter
shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for
consideration and a formal decision.
*****
Note related to the publication:
The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the Players’ Status Committee or the
DRC. Where such decisions contain confidential information, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 20 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the
Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).
Note relating to the appeal procedure:
According to art. 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS
directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the
elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS. Within another 10 days
following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file
a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4
of the directives).
The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:
Court of Arbitration for Sport
Avenue de Beaumont 2
1012 Lausanne, Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00
Fax: +41 21 613 50 01
e-mail: [email protected] / www.tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Player Saïd Id Azza, France / Club Giresunspor, Turkey
12/12